Skip to main content

About your Search

20120929
20120929
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
investigators still have not set foot in the ruins of the american consulate in benghazi, libya, tonight we're the first to tell you why. tonight, we have the likely reason and we have it from a top law enforcement official. four americans as you know were murdered in the assault, one american ambassador, christopher stevens. that was two and a half weeks ago. two and a half weeks that have seen the administration first describe this as a spontaneous outburst even though our reporting revealed that officials knew within 24 hours that it was not. only much later did they back away from that assessment. today, the director of national intelligence, james clapper, put out a statement explaining that early evidence supported that theory so that's why they told the white house and congress. clapper says that throughout the investigation, his agency made it clear that the assessment was preliminary and could change. neither his statement nor our sources specify a time frame for the dni's change of view. again, our sources tell us that law enforcement officials knew within 24 hours that this was a
to provide perimeter support in benghazi, protection, in other words, but that request was not granted. fran's a former white house homeland security advisor. she served in the george w. bush administration, currently she sits on the cia external advisory panel and recently visited libya with her employer, mcandrews and forbes. also joining us, former fbi assistant director, tom fuentes, who has extensive experience investigating attacks on americans overseas, and former cia officer, bob baer. so fran, so the fbi sought military protection to go into benghazi. why didn't they get it? >> well, the answer to that question, i think, is not really clear. so it's not unusual, when you want to set up a security perimeter, you may look to the host country. if the host country is unable or unwilling to provide it, we don't know what the answer to that is, y may ask if you think you need it for u.s. military support, but that's got to go through a process. it needs state department and nsc support, the u.s. military would have to make an assessment about how big a security package that would entail a
. now members of congress from both parties are demanding answers. on the ground in benghazi, investigators can't even get to the scene. nbc's mike viqueira is joining us from the white house with more on this. mike, how big a deal is this reversal? >> reporter: well, it's very controversial and potentially a big deal. the question all along is ever since those september 11th attacks what caused them, what was the motivation for the people who killed four americans including the american ambassador. and at the beginning as everybody is well aware at this point, the white house insisted that these were spontaneous demonstrations, a reaction to that anti-islamic film, much like the demonstrations that had happened just hours earlier in cairo and subsequently swept through the muslim world from the middle east to indonesia. they denied that there was any terrorism link involved. from the beginning, republicans and other critics have questioned that. they said that the president and the administration have not wanted to admit a terror link in an election year around 9/11. they sa
of the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. libya attack was organized, u.s. says. this is in this morning's "wall street journal." host: the story is also being covered in the "new york times." the headline, "shifting reports on libya killings may cost obama." host: back to the zpones our discussion regarding one party versus divided government. our next call is from anton in indiana on our line for democrats. anton, you're on the "washington journal." caller: well, thank you for taking my call. i enjoy your show. i watch you every weekend. host: well, i appreciate you watching. now, your thoughts on one party or a divided government, which are you in favor of? caller: well, i believe in divided government, but i don't believe in obstruction of the process. and i would like to remind all of your viewers about the grover norquist pledge that all of the republicans seemed to sign, and it kind of backs them in a corner not to compromise with the democrats. i would also like to remind everyone that mitt romney has also signed this pledge to grover norquist. can you im
, you know, just said the day before, we're going to cue the people in benghazi, and when gadhafi says i'm going to kill, he's going to kill. he was going to kill. what we have to do -- i work for a no-fly zone, but i wanted to be asked to do something, and i think that today in syria, it's very, very, very, very disappointed to see we're not doing anything. agree to disagree on this and let it to be the way it is with syria. i'm not saying we have to be passive, but we have to be respectful. we have to know with whom we -- we should not intervene only to protect our interests. in libya, it was quite clear this was a deal between the united states and france, and i think in syria, we have to care about the people who are being killed and not only about the interests, which i think is the case today. >> i'm a journalist from egypt visiting dc and returning back again to cover the dilemma between the polarization between islamists and civil or secular powers. you said that islam's in egypt say they want or seek for civil state, religious or islamic background, and this is not the case. do
when they said the administration lied about who was behind the attacks in benghazi, libya, senator john kerry called for rice to stay on. the republican party has severed ties with a virginia based consulting group it has paid $3 million to this year alone. the group is being investigated for voter fraud in nine counties in florida. right now, my story of the week. the republican bubble trap. if you follow politics, you've probably noticed that polling of the presidential election has swung quite decidedly in the president's favor over the last couple of weeks. the real clear politics polling average now has obama up 4.1 points over mitt romney in national poles. nate silver's prediction model put barack obama's odds of winning the election above 80% for the first time ever. swing state polling just this week seems to confirm the trend. a new quinnipiac "new york times" cbs poll shows surprisingly strong leads for the president. the galup tracking poll shows obama up six points. it's pretty hard to survey the polling data and not come to the conclusion that barack obama is beating
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)